Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Hong Kong.
You can tell what the flag is by hovering your mouse over it.

Thank you, I was unaware of that feature, and evidently need to brush up on flags before the next pub quiz.

Bishop F Gantry wrote:Good luck finding two identical games, but this one has an mostly asian cast... for the miniscule effect this rating will have on affecting ones purchase.

Some gamers may assign different levels of importance to such things. Shocking, I know!

illuknisaa wrote:Even when rating system just suggests what devs should do it is still like blackmailing devs to do what some social group wants.

So your solution is to continue catering to some other social group? I'm sorry, but in my opinion, gaming could, nay, should be about more than just selling a product. Not to mention that devs often get "blackmailed" by publishers either way. It's not uncommon to hear of studios facing much difficulty selling their idea of a non-standardised protagonist to the investors - an issue that may well be combated by said investors noticing rising pressure, such as via rating systems. In fact, publishers are even more sensitive to ratings than the studio, so much so that they write it into their contracts.

You could say it's at least as much about "blackmailing publishers" to back away from their idea of how a video game protagonist needs to look like as it is about "blackmailing devs" to consider characters catering to more social groups than just a single demographic.

illuknisaa wrote:And why not add try a rating for something that is objectively usefull information first before trying subjective ratings? Like "does the game have fov options? (Y/N)".

How is the supposed importance of FoV options more objective? Are you sure you're not just projecting your own perception onto others? Also, FoV can (and usually is) be discussed in a more detailed review - arguably, you cannot put every single bit of information on a box label. I don't see what's so illogical about limiting it to issues that are meaningful from a social point of view. Next thing we know someone will complain about stuff like stickers warning of harsh language or graphic violence.

Or ... is it because some gamers might feel uncomfortable with certain trends being pointed out for everyone to see? Is that what this resistance and this outrage are about?

 illuknisaa wrote:
Even when rating system just suggests what devs should do it is still like blackmailing devs to do what some social group wants. Just look what happened to robocop.

I am not sure what is supposed to have happened to Robocop. The last video involving Robocop I saw had him shooting at soooo many rapists' penises it was painful. And quite gore. Is that what you are talking about?

Sining wrote:
Source: https://archive.today/xs4N3
Relevant quote: "The video game industry has a problem with gender equality and lack of diversity. Spelplan-ASGD (trade association for game developers and producers in Sweden) want to see if a new norm-critical rating system can help non-white-males feel more welcome in taking on the role of gamers as well as game developers.
Vinnova (Swedish government agency) has granted Spelplan-ASGD 270,000 SEK (=36,000$) to investigate whether it is feasible to develop a rating system for video games that would make it possible for those who buy games to choose norm-critical games and in that way put pressure on the industry. The idea is that the system would also provide support for developers to develop new types of games."

This just seems really weird. I almost expect them to start trying to slip things into the peoples water now.

Oh dear god. 0.0

Really?

Why?

The entire reason why we have the current rating system is to ensure that kids don't get their hands on a game with graphic scenes in it.

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:I am not sure what is supposed to have happened to Robocop. The last video involving Robocop I saw had him shooting at soooo many rapists' penises it was painful. And quite gore. Is that what you are talking about?

He is probably referring to the scene where the corp that builds him makes focus group surveys in order to adapt Robocop to various groups' interests, with hilarious results.

The irony here is, of course, that as a movie itself, the "modernised" remake (I recently wasted the 90 minutes it takes to sit through it on Netflix) is obviously pandering to a very conservative audience, losing much of the social criticism of the original in favour of a dumbed down action movie celebrating police militarisation. Oh, and they've made his originally female partner Lewis a guy. (a black one at that, though)

[edit] Also, no penis-shooting in the remake. Instead you get corny action music in the first combat scene.

Asherian Command wrote:The entire reason why we have the current rating system is to ensure that kids don't get their hands on a game with graphic scenes in it.

What? Why would you assume that one has any effect on the other?

Lol yeah, the new Robocop movie misses the point something awful.

 Lynata wrote:
Or ... is it because some gamers might feel uncomfortable with certain trends being pointed out for everyone to see? Is that what this resistance and this outrage are about?

The trends are already there for everyone to see. The controversy is about interpreting them.

Another issue here is, who is the intended audience for this system? Current ratings system are for parents making decisions for their children. Is that also the case for "diversity rating"? Or is "diversity rating" aimed at adults? Can't adults make decisions about which games they want to play without a government- or industry-sponsored rating system?

My suspicion is, the proposed system is just intended as a shaming mechanism.

 Manchu wrote:
The trends are already there for everyone to see.

Just like many feminist topics, period. But talking about them, even mentioning that they exist, will still get a lot of hate-- just pointing out the existence of things made one person decide to send me a rather detailed and lurid rape fantasy about me.

 Lynata wrote:

Bishop F Gantry wrote:Good luck finding two identical games, but this one has an mostly asian cast... for the miniscule effect this rating will have on affecting ones purchase.

Some gamers may assign different levels of importance to such things. Shocking, I know!

illuknisaa wrote:Even when rating system just suggests what devs should do it is still like blackmailing devs to do what some social group wants.

So your solution is to continue catering to some other social group? I'm sorry, but in my opinion, gaming could, nay, should be about more than just selling a product. Not to mention that devs often get "blackmailed" by publishers either way. It's not uncommon to hear of studios facing much difficulty selling their idea of a non-standardised protagonist to the investors - an issue that may well be combated by said investors noticing rising pressure, such as via rating systems. In fact, publishers are even more sensitive to ratings than the studio, so much so that they write it into their contracts.

You could say it's at least as much about "blackmailing publishers" to back away from their idea of how a video game protagonist needs to look like as it is about "blackmailing devs" to consider characters catering to more social groups than just a single demographic.

illuknisaa wrote:And why not add try a rating for something that is objectively usefull information first before trying subjective ratings? Like "does the game have fov options? (Y/N)".

How is the supposed importance of FoV options more objective? Are you sure you're not just projecting your own perception onto others? Also, FoV can (and usually is) be discussed in a more detailed review - arguably, you cannot put every single bit of information on a box label. I don't see what's so illogical about limiting it to issues that are meaningful from a social point of view. Next thing we know someone will complain about stuff like stickers warning of harsh language or graphic violence.

Or ... is it because some gamers might feel uncomfortable with certain trends being pointed out for everyone to see? Is that what this resistance and this outrage are about?

Show me two identical games now that this rating actually would work on favouring one of them, or rather show me two games that are similar enough that such a rating could actually sway the consumer...

 Melissia wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
The trends are already there for everyone to see.

Just like many feminist topics, period. But talking about them, even mentioning that they exist, will still get a lot of hate-- just pointing out the existence of things made one person decide to send me a rather detailed and lurid rape fantasy about me.

The hypersensitivity around this area, the hugely disproportionate reaction against even mentioning diverse representation of gender, race, sexual orientation, etc., is definitely a thing. I mean, otherwise we would not be discussing hypothetical crackpot Swedish legislation in the first place. That's a fair point and an important one.

Now that we are discussing hypothetical crackpot Swedish legislation, however, it doesn't hurt to point out why it is crackpot. A rating system is inherently agenda-driven. The current system in the US and elsewhere, for example, is driven by the industry wanting to appear parent-friendly. In other words, the system is a way to market games to people who purchase the product but don't use it. For people who play games, the rating system is virtually meaningless. And when gamers do pay close attention to the ratings, we end up concluding they are arbitrary at best and cynically manipulated at worst.

With that in mind, is there any reason to believe a "diversity rating" could actually accomplish anything other than transparently peddling a narrow agenda? I can think of one thing -- the 'yellow star' point I mentioned earlier ITT.

I'm not yet convinced it IS crackpot, however. You can't always tell something just by looking at the game's front and back covers, having more information about the game included on the cover is NOT a bad thing-- sometimes those covers get downright dishonest. Enforcing more honesty is a good counter to that. Just look at the struggle that they had just to put two important female sidekicks on the cover itself.

 Melissia wrote:
Enforcing more honesty

Seems like you ignored my points about the current rating system, which has nothing to do with "honesty." Basically, everything worthwhile that a "diversity rating" could possibly do would be done so much better by a blog or network of blogs.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 illuknisaa wrote:
Even when rating system just suggests what devs should do it is still like blackmailing devs to do what some social group wants. Just look what happened to robocop.

I am not sure what is supposed to have happened to Robocop. The last video involving Robocop I saw had him shooting at soooo many rapists' penises it was painful. And quite gore. Is that what you are talking about?

I saw that. It was hilarious. That's the Robocop I know and love

 Lynata wrote:
The irony here is, of course, that as a movie itself, the "modernised" remake (I recently wasted the 90 minutes it takes to sit through it on Netflix) is obviously pandering to a very conservative audience, losing much of the social criticism of the original in favour of a dumbed down action movie celebrating police militarisation.

Then watch the not-modernised remake!
http://www.ourrobocopremake.com/

Might include quite NSFW parts.

Comparing marking Video games to the holocaust. That seems proportional. Or not.

 jorny wrote:
Comparing marking Video games to the holocaust. That seems proportional. Or not.

I guess this is directed at me. No comparison with the Holocaust is intended. The yellow star goes further back, to a long tradition forcing Jews to "stand out" -- sometimes allegedly for their protection. In any case, the analogy here is that getting a "gold star" as it were from a diversity rating board could turn a game into a target for those who oppose the board's agenda. If I were a developer or publisher, I would not want my games marked by any politically motivated group, whether I agreed with them or otherwise.

First of all, what has happened is that a preliminary study has been funded. This has nothing to do with legislation.

And the analogy is still way out of proportion.
Regardless of that you have a point considering the hate, threats and vitriol on the internet towards women in gaming.

I am not sure that a system of markings would be useful, and would rather see education and something more like ISO systems that are used to make quality checks of processes.

 jorny wrote:
Comparing marking Video games to the holocaust. That seems proportional. Or not.

It was so proportional I had not even understood what it was about. I could not even imagine some comparison this… weird.

 Manchu wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Enforcing more honesty

Basically, everything worthwhile that a "diversity rating" could possibly do would be done so much better by a blog or network of blogs.

And yet, clearly, said sources aren't doing the job good enough. While it might be ideal, true, it's not happening reliably enough apparently.

Oh, yeah:

 Manchu wrote:
Basically, everything worthwhile that a "diversity rating" could possibly do would be done so much better by a blog or network of blogs.

Do not tell GamerGate, because this would be an horrible, horrible breach of journalistic ethics!

 jorny wrote:
And the analogy is still way out of proportion.

Not really. Maybe you just don't understand it? The idea is that a mark is put on someone to single them out with the consequence of prejudice. I am worried about it because, as you noted:

 jorny wrote:
you have a point considering the hate, threats and vitriol on the internet towards women in gaming.

 jorny wrote:
would rather see education and something more like ISO systems that are used to make quality checks of processes.

Education of whom? "Quality" checks of what? Who defines "quality"?

 Melissia wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Basically, everything worthwhile that a "diversity rating" could possibly do would be done so much better by a blog or network of blogs.

And yet, clearly, said sources aren't doing the job good enough. While it might be ideal, true, it's not happening reliably enough apparently.

Maybe we have different conceptions of the "job" in question. I am suggesting if you want reliable information about diversity in a game, the best place to get it would be from a blog or somewhere else with the space to develop nuanced thoughts about this complicated topic.

Do you mean the "job" of making games more diverse? Like, as in making it the law that games are diverse?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 jorny wrote:
Comparing marking Video games to the holocaust. That seems proportional. Or not.

It was so proportional I had not even understood what it was about. I could not even imagine some comparison this… weird.

I honestly thought that I would get the answer that the yellow star is a reference to something completely different.

 jorny wrote:
I honestly thought that I would get the answer that the yellow star is a reference to something completely different.

So you were just trolling?

 Manchu wrote:
Do you mean the "job" of making games more diverse? Like, as in making it the law that games are diverse?

Replace "law" with "goal", as in, the industry's own internal goal, not just externally stated goals-- then... yes.

 Manchu wrote:

 jorny wrote:
I honestly thought that I would get the answer that the yellow star is a reference to something completely different.

So you were just trolling?

No. Absolutely not. I just thought that there was a chance that it was a reference to something other than hundreds of years of brutal oppression of Jews, because it seemed so absurd. Some pop cultural reference I had missed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

Education of whom? "Quality" checks of what? Who defines "quality"?

Do you mean the "job" of making games more diverse? Like, as in making it the law that games are diverse?

What I am refering to is the different ISO systems of checking management systems. Which is also what the press release says that the study will look at. This means that a gaming company could choose to go through a voluntary certification process which of course would require some education. These kinds of certifications are extremely common in all kinds of industries.

And still. The government and/or the parliament has nothing to with this, and this has absolutely nothing to do with any legislation and the state will have nothing to do with.

 Melissia wrote:
Replace "law" with "goal", as in, the industry's own internal goal, not just externally stated goals-- then... yes.

Industries self-regulate to persue benefits, including avoiding becoming externally regulated. What benefit would the video game industry reap by self-regulating about diversity? And what kind of disadvantages must be weighed against those benefits? As I have tried to argue above, I cannot imagine developers or publishers wanting to get involved with something like this.

 jorny wrote:
something other than hundreds of years of brutal oppression

In a sense, that is exactly what we are talking about, albeit not just concerning the Jewish people but also women, blacks, homosexuals, trangendered people, etc.

 jorny wrote:
a voluntary certification process which of course would require some education

Yeah but, again, according to what standards set by whom?

 Manchu wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Replace "law" with "goal", as in, the industry's own internal goal, not just externally stated goals-- then... yes.

Industries self-regulate to persue benefits, including avoiding becoming externally regulated. What benefit would the video game industry reap by self-regulating about diversity? And what kind of disadvantages must be weighed against those benefits? As I have tried to argue above, I cannot imagine developers or publishers wanting to get involved with something like this.

Apparently the Swedish developers and publishers since they have started all of this.

Yeah but, again, according to what standards set by whom?

This is of course a huge issue with all of these kind of self regulations and you have a very good point. In this case maybe the industry themselves. I know that some organisations in Sweden, sports clubs for instance bring in RFSL (The Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights) for education about homo- and transphobia. Something similar could maybe be done with gaming. I don't know. The gaming industry neither. That is why they are doing this study, because they have identified what they see as a problem (i.e lack of diversity) and are trying to find a way forward.

Maybe you can explain more but from reading over this site it seems like these trade associations have two purposes: to interface with (1) states (i.e, lobbying) and (2) consumers (i.e., marketing), for the benefit of its members. In this case, Spelplan-ASGD successfully lobbied the Swedish state to subsidize research into (presumably self-) regulation, specifically

to investigate whether it is feasible to develop a rating system for video games that would make it possible for those who buy games to choose norm-critical games and in that way put pressure on the industry

That highlighted part is a bit confusing. So Spelplan-ASGD wants to put pressure on its own members? How does that work? Surely if developers wanted to represent greater diversity, they would not need to be pressured to do so? Or do Swedish developers want to see more diversity but are afraid their games will be less competitive and so want the Swedish government to subsidize research into ratings-based protectionism? Or does Spelplan-ASGD not really represent the interests of all/most Swedish game companies?

Suffice it to say, the motivations here are not totally clear on their face. But it does seem to me that these ratings are not about giving consumers clearer information about games.

 Manchu wrote:
Maybe you can explain more but from reading over this site it seems like these trade associations have two purposes: to interface with (1) states (i.e, lobbying) and (2) consumers (i.e., marketing), for the benefit of its members. In this case, Spelplan-ASGD successfully lobbied the Swedish state to subsidize research into (presumably self-) regulation, specifically

to investigate whether it is feasible to develop a rating system for video games that would make it possible for those who buy games to choose norm-critical games and in that way put pressure on the industry

That highlighted part is a bit confusing. So Spelplan-ASGD wants to put pressure on its own members? How does that work? Surely if developers wanted to represent greater diversity, they would not need to be pressured to do so? Or do Swedish developers want to see more diversity but are afraid their games will be less competitive and so want the Swedish government to subsidize research into ratings-based protectionism? Or does Spelplan-ASGD not really represent the interests of all/most Swedish game companies?

Suffice it to say, the motivations here are not totally clear on their face. But it does seem to me that these ratings are not about giving consumers clearer information about games.

The highlighted part is written by a journalist at idg.se. Spelplan never uses the word pressure. And they really didn't lobby for money for this. They probably just sent an application to Vinnova.
What they write in their press release is that the goal is more or less this:

...where one of the goals is to provide process support which will provide concrete assistance to game developers in their diversity efforts. So there is not a finished label to be introduced, but a study will lay the foundation to support the companies in future ventures. This is to help the computer games industry both directly and indirectly, to continue to grow and develop.

This is from http://www.dataspelsbranschen.se/nyheter/2014/11/13/foerstudie-kring-normkritisk-maerkning.aspx, Spelplans press release. I ran it through google translate and tried to make it a little more understandable.

 Manchu wrote:
Industries self-regulate

Hahahahaheheheheheheheeee.... nnnnnnnnoooooooooooooooooooo.

The past twenty years has shown that self-regulation by business is pretty much a lie.